<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (8) TMI 98 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364626</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, setting aside the demands, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of suppression and misstatement, leading to the rejection of the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:49:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 98 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364626</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, setting aside the demands, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of suppression and misstatement, leading to the rejection of the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364626</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>